Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Colin,
One other reason and it would be added is to say that when selecting which
pt numbers to use always assume that multiplexing of RTP/RTCP  is used.
Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 05 September, 2013 3:28 PM
> To: Qin Wu
> Cc: Roni Even; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] New Version Notification for draft-wu-avtcore-
> dynamic-pt-usage-00.txt
> 
> Qin,
> 
> On 5 Sep 2013, at 03:42, Qin Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,Colin:
> > For motivation, May I point you to look at the following discussion on
> MMUSIC mailing list:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/payload/current/msg00542.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11062.html
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg11107.html
> >
> > I don't know it is sufficient to just send some proposed IANA changes to
> IANA.
> > Usually based on my understanding, a document is needed to let IANA to
> take action.
> 
> If your goal is simply to correct the registry to match RFC 5761, then I
don't
> believe you need a new document. Just email the IANA, and ask them to
> make the correction to match RFC 5761.
> 
> > For your comments, I do think we give a new policy for new payload
format
> coming up, please see my reply below.
> ...
> > [Qin]: I disagree. just like two policies given in section 4 of RFC5761,
one
> new policy we want to give in this draft is since the registry for RTP
Payload
> types (PT) for standard audio and video
> > encodings  is closed, new payload format *MUST*   use dynamic payload
> type number assignment and Each new payload format is named by a
> registered media subtype.
> >
> > However RFC3551 section 3.1 only said,to register additional encoding,
you
> may either assign each encoding a short name, in some context, you refer
to
> these encodings in the form of a MIME content-type, or assigns static RTP
> payload type numbers, or assign with dynamic payload type number.
> 
> I don't understand your message, but I do not believe there is a conflict
> between RFC 3551 and 5761.
> 
> > [Qin]: I see. However one thing I don't understand, RFC5761only
> > proposes Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port, Why
> two policies defined in RFC5761 can affect RFC3551 and proposed payload
> type usage can be used to update RFC3551.
> 
> Because the payload type in RTP and RTCP packet occupies the same byte,
> but is 7 bits in RTP and 8 bits in RTCP. When multiplexing RTP and RTCP
> packets on the same port it is necessary to specify how to distinguish.
That is
> the reason why RFC 5761 updates RFC 3551.
> 
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
>